So, in the ongoing debate to brand myself as an ideology, I've recently started calling myself a social libertarian. I've discussed the ideology previously, although I was more mixed at the time. Still, I feel like my own ideology does fit within the umbrella of social libertarianism. The thing is, no single term does describe me fully. I was going by "indepentarian" based off of Karl Widerquist's ideology, but I really don't want to say my ideology is exclusively influenced by him, or have what I say associated with what he says and vice versa all of the time. I definitely like his seminal text "Independence, Propertylessness, and Basic Income: A Theory of Freedom as the Power to Say No" (link available for free from his website), but I can't say that I'm a huge fan of his other works which seem to lean more in an anarchist direction and question the lockean proviso as much. I do support the idea of society, although I do recognize UBI is essential in compensating people for its existence in order to maximize their freedom. I also find myself influenced by other similar theories like Phillippe Van Parijs' "real libertarianism".
So...I've backed off and consider myself a "social libertarian". This is intended to draw a middle ground between right libertarianism, which is defined as being mindlessly anti state to the point of thinking government is all the evil in the world, and left libertarianism, which any time I try to claim I get some freaking leftist gatekeeping me by not being an anarchist, socialist, or communist. So for me, social libertarianism is intended to be an umbrella for ideologies that are between those two forms of libertarianism...basically defining a libertarian who is...economically liberal, rather than conservative or socialist. Essentially, given the association of the ideology with Andrew Yang and his 2020 campaign, another MAJOR influence of mine by this point, and libertarian social democracy and commentators like Kyle Kulinski, who is probably the closest to my views among all left wing youtube commentators I know of, yeah, it fits. I mean, like always, I don't agree with any of these influences completely, but by this point, we're getting warm.
It also makes sense that given me tracing my own ideological roots, I arrived at my ideology as an evolution from social liberalism. Basically, I'm a former social liberal who around 2014 or so evolved into a social libertarian in shifting to supporting UBI and adopting indepentarian and real libertarian strains of thought into my worldview.
That said, to make it clear, social libertarianism doesn't just mean that I'm a libertarian on social issues. I mean, yes, I am largely a libertarian on social issues, having views similar to John Stuart Mill's "harm principle" (another social liberal with libertarian tendencies), but, you should think of it as a variation of being a social liberal or social democrat. Social doesn't just mean "social issues", it's also an indicator of my economic leanings, which are a left form of liberalism, but which also has libertarian meanings.
What distinguishes me from a social liberal or democrat? The fact that I actually do integrate UBI and much higher levels of individual freedom into my ideology than those ideologies do. The thing that separates "left libertarians" broadly from right libertarians is the emphasis on positive liberty. And yes, state power, while coercive, can also create environments in which people are more free than they would be otherwise.
While in most mainstream left wing "liberal" ideologies, people would still be coerced into the labor force, often against their will, they will just be treated better within it, I believe, much like Widerquist does, that forcing people to labor against their will under a property rights system that gives them no freedom to say no, is a bad thing that should be prevented. That economic coercion is a form of coercion and that people should be free from private influence. This means free from jobs, and also free from other private relationships.
And this doesn't just apply to pure economics. Look at how I apply my ideology to speech. Not only do I support a government right to free speech, I support a right to being free from private influences as well. I abhor cancel culture and also don't really believe employers should be able to fire people from jobs for expressing political views except for a narrow range of circumstances directly related to the job.
Or take abortion, which I just discussed. I dont believe people should be forced to be parents and should be free to abort children. And for men, I also support the "financial abortion" to free people from being coerced to be parents. And of course, my UBI also gives people more freedom to live as they want.
Conservative conceptions of freedom may be anti state, but they sure as fudge aren't very free otherwise. You're free to work or starve. You're free to have sex, get pregnant, be forced to give birth, and be a parent. You're free but others control large swaths of your life to the point you are trapped and unable to live as you really want to.
To truly be free, you need the ingredients of life that allow you to EXERCISE your freedom. Not only does this mean nonintervention from government, but also means the ability to exercise your freedom. Is it not possible for the government to give people a UBI to actually increase their ability to live as they want? Karl Widerquist thinks so. So does Phillippe Van Parijs. There are whole schools of left libertarianism based around UBI and the emancipatory power it would provide. Or, shall we say, social libertarianism, because leftists tend to hate when others who aren't themselves "leftists" call themselves "left." Hence the distinction.
Sure, taxation is coercive. But, like most on the left, and many among the social libertarian community as well, property rights aren't natural rights. They themselves came to exist in the past via force, and are themselves responsible for a lot of coercion. And right libertarians just fail to recognize this acting like property is natural and their own ideology is actually opposed to social contracts. Except, like all of the others, their ethical system like the NAP and the stuff doesnt exist in nature. It's a set of rules that humans made and either agree to live by, or are forced upon them. From there, we can just argue what rule set is preferable or more just. And I'd rather have a society that recognizes property rights, but also puts some limits on them in order to avoid the pitfalls of right libertarianism and free people in other ways.
As for the state....my ideal state is one that minimizes its methods of intervention. My ideas are actually based on a similar principle to Yang's "modern and effective governance". Ideally, taxes would be collected automatically without any need for any individual to be inconvenienced by the process. My original UBI plans even had a flat tax that would've been collected at the point of "earning" it. Whenever you earned other income, you would just have it deducted from your paycheck like payroll taxes, unless that wasnt practical. I hate the idea of filling out forms or having taxes hit people in burdensome ways. I want to make it easy and nonintrusive. Of course I've backed off of that, instead choosing just to collect UBI in such a way on top of the existing tax system, but seriously, you think I like paying taxes? No one does. But if collectively redistributing a portion of income can be made as painless as possible and in the grand scheme of things makes people more free, then that's fine.
This is also why I dislike forms and other methods of UBI like NIT. When you have an NIT, you introduce a form to collect your UBI. This means needing to manually report income, and then have a bureaucracy that compensates you accordingly. No, this is why I go for a full UBI with automatic tax collection. Minimal intervention, intended to minimize the need for bureaucracy, book keeping, and forms. Forms are a way to limit or gatekeep who gets what, and that itself can be coercive and undermine UBI in some key ways in my opinion.
It's also why I like medicare for all. Wanna know what I think is the most libertarian healthcare system? Not a free market. Not insurance you gotta pay so much a month and need to pay deductibles for. Once again, tax people automatically as they earn income, and then when they go to the hospital, they get help. They walk in, get the help they need, and walk out as their health allows them obviously. No surprise charges or billing. So basically, medicare for all.
I mean, some of yall haven't read Anu Partanen's "Nordic Theory of Everything" (my reaction/summary here) and it shows. The nordic theory and social democracy do have some libertarian tendencies, as outlined in the book. Some level of collectivism actually serves to liberate people and enhance them as individuals. As I said in my own reaction, my ideology is a lot like that, but I take things a step further, believing a UBI is really needed to complete such a theory of freedom.
But really, that's the kind of world I want to achieve. And why I've added the Nordic Theory of Everything to the list of books I'd recommend people to understand my own ideology. Social democracy and the nordic model are parallel to me. I just take things a step further, which is why I call myself a "social libertarian." I'm a social democrat with explicitly libertarian leanings, more so than most socdems or social liberals.
And that's what I mean when I call myself a social libertarian. It doesn't make me an anti government crazy, I actually do support government. People need to understand that libertarian doesn't necessarily mean anarchy. Even when I was a right lib I was more a minarchist who understood we need government for police and courts. The fact that gatekeepy libertarians act like I'm not a libertarian because my idea of what liberty is different is just...ugh.
Then again, I guess that's the pain we social libertarians have to put up with, going back to the polcompball wiki:
He's too much of a "Socialist" for libertarians, so he's called a "fake libertarian" by LibRights. On the other hand, he's also called a "Libertarian Trojan Horse" by socialists.
Yeah. Basically. Actually, literally this. Right libs think I'm a dirty statist and one even called me a "socialist" lately, when...uh...trust me. No I'm not. Actual socialists hate me and think UBI is literally some capitalist trojan horse to destroy welfare and undermine socialism or something. You can't win. Everyone has to be a critic. *sigh*
No comments:
Post a Comment